Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-03-30

master General with the commissioners
of inter-s ate commerce in the admins
tratiOn OF the interstate commerce act,
nor to relieve the POStmaster-Gener
| from the duty of experimenting aud eX-
eCuting all laws relating to the postal
service. No intent is manifested indiCat-
ing q division OF the service, l7bOr Or re-
spOnSibility between the Postmaster Gen
eral and the commissioners of Interstate
commerce. The. act was not Intended
to relate to the postal service.
The system of the postal service confers
! on the Postmaster General the power to
make contracts, some of which must be
exceptional, arising from unexpected
emergencies which could not in all cases
| be made in conformity with prescribed
general rules IS to price or terms, and
concerning which urgency or necessity
would preclude the possibility of a con-
ference for exceptions with the
commissioners Of interstate com
merce. The amount of compensation
is in many instances submitted to his
Judgment. In others the law provides
fixed prices per mile for given services.
In other instances the law provides for
the carriage Of persons in the service
free of charge. A general examination
Of the whole scope of the postal laws
shows that if the Interstate commerce
act were treated as il Incorporated into
the postal system of laws, the charge
would be so radical as to reneer
1t highly improbable that so extensive a
modification or repeal would be left to
mere amplitication. Indeed such change
could De recognized only by the express
language Of the statute. In the Conduc-
ton Of the postal service of the United
States to the exclusion of all others is
exercised one OF the functions of govern
mental sovereignty. The service is
Purely governmental. 1t is the common
law rule Of construction that the s0ver-
eign is not bound by general
statutes unless expressly named
therein. In English courts prerogative
is claimed as the foundation of this rule,
but American courts have based it upon
reason and expect from the rule modes Of
procedure TO be formed for such other
transactions as are not strictly govern
mental; but ''if the statutes tends to re-
strain or diminish the power, right or
interest Of the sovereign, the rule
of construction is adhered to,
the doctrine that the government should
not, unless named, be bound by an act of
limitation, because if bound it would be
a bar to rights, and in all such cases it is
not construed to be embraced unless
named, or, what would be equivalent, IN
less the language Is such as 10 show
clearly that such was the intent of the
act"
If the Interstate act were TO be applied
to the mail service of the United States lit ,
would naturally diminish the power and
rights heretofore exercised and held
under the postal laws, and would modify
clearly defined policy established as q |
result of experience of the whole national
life. The United. States is not specially
named in the act Of February 4, 1887, ex- |
Cept in section %, which provides that
nothing in this act shall apply TO the
Garage, storage or handling of property
free or at reduced rates for the
United States" If the carriage,
storage or handling of property
of the United States were in all instances
pur. ly governmental, this exception
would be entitled to great weight as an
implication that in all cases not excepted |
the sovereign was intended to be ex-
cluded.
But in many transactions Of the gov
eminent, as in the carrying of stores and
delivery TO Indian tribes in pursuance of
treaty or contract, the action of the gov
eminent is quasi commercial, and of such !
nature that no attribute of sovereignty is |
involved. This exception in the statute |
was doubtless intended TO relieve such |
transaction of a doubtful character from |
the provisions of the act. If so intended, |
the exception of the enactment, which |
under less rigid application of the con-
struCtiOn OF the American courts might |
or would not have been considered |
as within the principle, would be an
afirmanCe of the principle as |
applicable to the construction Of the !
s Latute; but In any event the general |
principle of construction cannot De |
everted by mere implication, for in the
language of the case last cited the impli- |
cation cannot produce such results Sun
less the language is such as to show |
clearly tnat such was the intent of the |
act" which the language in this case does |
not do. 1t is therefore clear that the |
United States is not embraced in or
subject to the provisions of
the act of the 4th of February, 1887. !
That service consists il the receipt, i
speedy transmission, distribution and de-
livery of the mail service. In its prOvi
sions none of the lawful, customary and
necessary iustrumentalitIes by which that
service is conducted are subjected TO the
laws. Among the lawful, customary and